Coyle v. Donaldson
| Decision Date | 17 November 1919 |
| Citation | 108 A. 308 |
| Parties | COYLE et al. v. DONALDSON et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Bill by John William Coyle and others against Elizabeth C. Donaldson and others, executrices of James Coyle, deceased, to obtain a construction of the will. From a decree of the Court of Chancery (105 Atl. 605), defendants appeal. Reversed, and case remanded to Court of Chancery, to enter a decree in accordance with opinion.
James A. Gordon, of Jersey City, and John J. Fallon, of Hoboken, for appellants.
John Francis Gough, of Jersey City, for respondents.
The bill of complaint in this case was filed in the Court of Chancery, to obtain, among other things, a construction of the meaning of two clauses in the last will of James Coyle, deceased. The only point, however, involved in this appeal, is the meaning of the words or the phrase in the fourteenth clause of the will, "the coal business now owned by me," bequeathed to the testator's grandson, James W. Coyle, Jr., and his daughter, Elizabeth C. Donaldson.
The learned Vice Chancellor, before whom the case in the first instance was heard, reasoning from analogy, decided the words included only the good will of the business, the leasehold interest of the land on which the coal business was conducted, and the horses, wagons, and other equipment used by the testator in carrying on the business of coal merchant. We think this construction is too narrow. These words or this phrase in the will include, in addition thereto, the following items:. Coal on hand, valued at $7,054.38; cash and checks, $775,34; cash on deposit in check account "James Coyle Coal," $1,978.12; difference between bills receivable and payable, i. e., for coal sold and delivered, $5,873.73—total in dispute, $15,681.57. Whether such was the testator's meaning and intention, to use the language of this court, as written by Mr. Justice Dixon, in the case of Torrey v. Torrey, 70 N. J. Law, 673, 59 Atl. 450, must he determined, not by fixing the attention on single words, but by considering the entire will and the surroundings of the testator when he executed the will, and by ascribing to him, so far as his language permits, the common impulses of our nature. If we put ourselves in the position of the testator at the time of the execution of the will, and consider the circumstances he had in view in Imaking the will, it seems quite clear that the coal business was to pass, as it was then owned by the testator, as a whole, with all that pertained to it, as a going concern or business. Neither one of these two legatees had any means whatever, except what they received under the provisions of the will, and no one, perhaps, knew better than the testator himself that such a business could not be carried on successfully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Robert
...v. Murphy, 118 N.J.Eq. 108, 112, 177 A. 682 (Ch.1935), affirmed 119 N.J.Eq. 83, 180 A. 829 (E. & A.1935); Coyle v. Donaldson, 91 N.J.Eq. 138, 140, 108 A. 308 (E. & A.1919); Bank of New York v. Black, supra, 26 N.J., at p. 285, 139 A.2d at p. 397. In the Black case, this court had recent occ......
-
Hackensack Trust Co. v. Ackerman
...J., and its successors, as trustee of the trust dated April 27, 1934, for the benefit of James T. Ackerman, and others. Coyle v. Donaldson, 91 N.J.Eq. 138, 108 A. 308. In Commercial Trust Co. of New Jersey v. Kohl, 131 N.J.Eq. 233, 24 A.2d 809, 811, this court held: ‘The well-recognized rul......
-
Blauvelt v. Citizens Trust Co.
... ... 542 (E. & A. 1863; Coffin v. Watson, 78 N.J.Eq. 307, 79 A. 275 (Ch. 1911) affirmed 79 N.J.Eq. 643, 83 A. 1118 (E. & A. 1912); Coyle v. Donaldson, 91 N.J.Eq ... Page 553 ... 138, 108 A. 308 (E. & A. 1918); Peer v. Jenkins, 102 N.J.Eq. 235, 140 A. 413 (E. & A. 1928). See also ... ...
-
Trust Co. Of N.J. v. Cemetery
...14 N.J.Eq. 124; Tooker v. Vreeland, 92 N.J.Eq. 340, 112 A. 665, affirmed Tooker v. Maple, 93 N.J.Eq. 224, 115 A. 255; Coyle v. Donaldson, 91 N.J.Eq. 138, 108 A. 308; Noice v. Schnell, 101 N.J.Eq. 252, 137 A. 582, 58 A.L.R. 965. From inspection of the wills and from the recited facts I think......